A.Joboy v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ANR.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/141/2021 A.Joboy ...
Petitioner Vs.
The Andaman and Nicobar & others.
...
Respondents Mr.KMB Jayapal, Advocate ... for the petitioner Mr.Krishna Rao, Advocate ...for the respondents September 14, 2021 [GNC] Item No.11.
The instant writ petition is filed seeking a direction upon the respondent No.2, the Tehsildar, Port Blair to correct the land record in connection with the survey Nos.16/119/1 comprising an area of 200 square meters situated at Junglighat village, Port Blair tehsil, district of South Andaman in terms of the order dated 24th March, 2019 passed in RC 1060/2019/TPB. The facts germane from the writ petition relates to the aforesaid land where one Paramanand was the recorded tenant. The said recorded tenant died on 2nd July, 2018 leaving behind him surviving his wife, who subsequently conveyed the said land to the petitioner by executing an agreement for sale.
A power of attorney was also executed by the wife of the said recorded owner in favour of the petitioner and on the basis of the aforesaid agreement and the power of attorney having granted to the petitioner, a representation was made to the respondent No.2 to mutate his name in respect of the said plot.
petitioner being WP No.322 of 2018 for a direction upon the said Tehsildar to mutate the name of the petitioner in the registers maintained in respect of the subject property. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the Tehsildar to consider the request of the petitioner for mutation in respect of the survey land within the stipulated time.
Ultimately, the Tehsildar in terms of the order disposed of the proceeding directing mutation in favour of the petitioner upon payment of mutation fees and the concerned Patwari was also directed to take necessary steps for correction in the land record and to submit a compliance report.
Subsequently, the said proceeding was sought to be resurrected as notice is issued to the petitioner by the Tehsildar, the respondent No.2 herein directing him to appear before it with all supporting documents. It is contended by the petitioner that once the proceeding has come to an end, no power vest upon the respondent No.2 to issue a fresh notice directing appearance of the petitioner along with all supporting documents. The aforesaid contention appears to have been taken because of language used in the said notice. According to Mr.Rao, the learned advocate for the Administration there is no fetter on the part of the Tehsildar to resurrect the proceeding provided the exigencies so demand. Since a notice to appear has been issued by the respondent No.2 and no further decision has been taken thereupon, in my opinion, the writ petition appears to be premature.
All the points canvassed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition can be conveniently agitated before the said authority and the authority being the quasi judicial authority has to decide the same according to the extant rules/regulations applicable in this regard. The authority may ultimately decide in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner is unfounded.
The petitioner is permitted to raise all such pleas including the resurrection of the proceeding by the Tehsildar and if such point is taken the Tehsildar will decide the same by recording proper reasons.
Since the time to appear has elapsed because of the pendency of the writ petition, this Court directs the Tehsildar to issue a fresh notice indicating the date and time for appearance of the petitioner which shall not exceed beyond one month from the date of communication of this order.
The aforesaid direction for issuance of fresh notice shall not be construed as conferment of power upon the said respondent if otherwise not provided in the regulation or the statue but the said direction is passed solely on the premise that the time indicated in the said notice has elapsed in the meantime.
The writ petition is thus disposed of.
( Harish Tandon, J.)